Ooops!
Having said that, I thought we lost down-voting longer ago. You live'n'learn (ish).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Quietly Discontinues MacBook Pro 17"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Having said that, I thought we lost down-voting longer ago. You live'n'learn (ish).
Just noting that Apple still hasn't managed to sell all the remaining 17" MBPs as refurbished in the UK, so the demand can't have been _that_ high. If everyone who downvoted against that move had bought one, they would be gone by now.
I think the 17" was a model that lots of people _wanted_, but then didn't actually _buy_.
I have known a couple of people who have purchased refurbs and have had good experiences, but many shy away from them, myself included.
We need the down vote button back....badly.
I bought a new 17" Mac Book Pro in late 2010. Unless some terrible accident occurs, I won't be replacing it until there is another 17" from Apple to replace it. The 15" is just too small now.
or it could be that the kind of people that buy 17" laptops aren't willing to buy a refurb of the last generation of MBPs in order to have one.
Once the 17" MBP pro was axed it went from being a "l33t coder" status symbol to being obsolete old tech.
Could have fooled me. I have one and still love it-- the high-res 1920x1200 display with matte screen. Perfect. The external dimensions are almost the same as some cheap 15" PCs with lots of extra plastic.
Since I bought a 17" PowerBook G4, I bought a few more 17" Apple laptop since then. Most recently I bought a 2011 17" MBP.
When Apple transitioned to Intel, Apple didn't release a 17" version until later. I am hoping that's the case, and since I usually buy every few years, I can wait.
Exactly. I have that display too.
I purchased my 17" MacBook Pro in September 2010. I am in a similar situation waiting for it to return so I can replace my current laptop.
I didn't order many options aside from max'ing out the RAM and HD, but the one thing I was able to get was the matte finish (non-glossy) screen.
When 17" MacBook Pro's return, I would certainly love for this to still be available. I honestly haven't followed Apple's laptops that closely, option wise, as the 17" was not available.
now that I have played around with the retina Macbooks at workI seriously can't believe they don't do a 17" rMBP. It would kill!
Heck they can cram even more battery and flash in a 17" and still keep the weight pretty light.
Heck they can cram even more battery and flash in a 17" and still keep the weight pretty light.
For me, the 17" was too big to be portable and too small to [seriously] work on.
In these times of cheap and good external displays, any size laptop and an external screen was a better option, especially if it was an only Mac.
Goodbye 17", never liked you anyway, hope you burn in the recycle furnace.
In these times of cheap and good external displays, any size laptop and an external screen was a better option, especially if it was an only Mac.
Goodbye 17", never liked you anyway, hope you burn in the recycle furnace.
Well if the 17" doesn't return I would look into the Retina MBP.
For me, the 17" was too big to be portable and too small to [seriously] work on.
In these times of cheap and good external displays, any size laptop and an external screen was a better option, especially if it was an only Mac.
Goodbye 17", never liked you anyway, hope you burn in the recycle furnace.
It seems that you've never used a 17" MBP. It's the same size and weight as many 15" PC laptops. It's fine to work on.
Their primary drawback is they look simply ridiculous on the lap of anyone in an airport. Plus, the distance from the front of the device to the screen is enormous.
Or could it be that these are not selling because they are now using significantly obsolete hardware?
I appreciate the comment, but retina display or not, the smaller display is a step backwards for me.
I have re-read this thread, and I have seen more than one comment where the end user has ended up with a smaller mac book and is using an external monitor to resolve this issue. And I think that is great for those users.
When I need my laptop, it is typically in a mobile or remote situation.
My 17" MacBook pro still works great, and I plan to keep it till either Apple starts selling 17" or similar sized screens again, or I accidentally kill mine. At such time I will need to figure out what Plan B is.
Yea, but you can't expect gnasher729 to use logic when it comes to analysing a decision made by their beloved company Apple.
----------
It's not really the use case they had in mind when they were designing it and besides, who gives a rats arse how it looks to other people?
what are you talking about?
the unibody 17 MBP had the same depth front to back as a 15" MBP. It's only about 1 1/2" wider than a 15" MBP. And it only weighs what 12 or 14 oz more than a 15".
I've worked in all-Macintosh companies and you really can have a hard time recognizing 17" from a 15" at a distance. But I suppose if you are the judgmental type you could discern the difference.
And like others have pointed out, the Mac 17" was easily the thinnest lightest 17" laptop out there. Have you seen any of HP's 17" behemoths?
I'm talking about perception. I didn't specify, but the pre-Unibody was almost a full inch deeper. EXCUSE ME for not being a specification nerd.
The first time someone sees it, they're likely to think the same thing. And it's been a while since I've seen someone lugging a 17" around an airport or on a plane, but I know people who do it (non-MacBook Pro) and they suffer for it.
I don't leave the house ever with out my 17". If you feel like you're lugging it you need to play a few more sports or go to the gym..
Though, 13-14in is my preferred mobile laptop size, the 17 is a nice option for developers. I would rather use a full workstation when I develop, but a few of my colleagues have 17 laptops. They are beast to carry around, due to size more than weight. I see it as a second laptop to a smaller one. There is no reason it should be the sole computer. A smaller is needed for basic computing and the 17 used only when needed. The benefit to a 17"er is there, especially when it can be used a workstation replacement. Too bad to see it go, but it is understandable...
Just where things are going. The consumer is more profitable than the professional. Maybe if a nice and portable flat screen with a design and stand like the surface was made, the pros could use their smaller tablet or laptop with it when needed.
Just where things are going. The consumer is more profitable than the professional. Maybe if a nice and portable flat screen with a design and stand like the surface was made, the pros could use their smaller tablet or laptop with it when needed.
I didn't say me. I don't have a problem with it, but again, I didn't say me.
Exactly. The 17" MBP is definitely portable. I've used 17" PowerBook G4 and it is still more manageable than some of the current PCs.
Wrong. You have never seen a 17" MBP.
I don't know about for taking it on an airplane, but I know a 17" model would be awesome for on-the-road Logic Pro use. 15" is pretty hard to look at with a lot of things going on. Every little bit helps. I don't think the 17" is that hard to transport for important uses like that. Whether you "need" one at Starbucks is another question entirely.
I think the real problem here is that things like the Mac Pro and 17" MBP were actual professional computers, not things to tweet on play with your Facebook page. Unfortunately, Apple seems to have abandoned the true pro markets and seems to be onto this idea that "everyone" is now a "Pro" spiel, which is a joke unless you think YouTube is a pro television station operation.